来源：《美联社新闻》
原文刊登日期：2021年11月1日
本文适合2023考生
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal over whether the public should have access to opinions of the secretive court that reviews bulk email collection, warrantless internet searches and other government surveillance programs.
美国最高法院周一拒绝审理有关公众是否应该获得秘密法庭意见书的上诉。秘密法庭负责审查大量电子邮件收集、未经授权的互联网搜索和其他政府监控项目。
The justices turned away the appeal filed by civil liberties and media rights groups arguing that the public has a constitutional right to see significant opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. They also argued that federal courts, not the executive branch, should decide when opinions that potentially affect the privacy of millions of Americans should be made public.
大法官们拒绝了公民自由和媒体权利组织提出的上诉，这些组织认为公众有宪法权利看到外国情报监视法庭的重要意见书。他们还认为，应该由联邦法院，而不是行政部门，决定何时公开可能影响数百万美国人隐私的意见书。
Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Sonia Sotomayor said they would have heard the case. Gorsuch wrote that the case “presents questions about the right of public access to ... judicial proceedings of grave national importance.” “If these matters are not worthy of our time,” he wrote, “what is?”
尼尔·戈萨奇大法官和索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官表示，他们在审理此案的问题上投了同意票。戈萨奇写道，该案“提出了公众获取……对国家具有重大意义的司法程序的权利的问题。”“如果这些事情都不值得我们花费时间，”他写道，“那还有什么值得呢？”
The Biden administration had opposed high-court review, arguing that not even the Supreme Court has the authority to review the case under federal law. In addition, the administration said much of the material sought in this case already has been made public through requests made under the Freedom of Information Act.
拜登政府曾反对最高法院的复审，称根据联邦法律，即使是最高法院也无权复审此案。此外，政府表示，此案中寻求的大部分材料已经根据《信息自由法》的要求公之于众。
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was established in 1978 to receive applications from the FBI to listen in people it suspects of being agents of a foreign power, such as potential spies or terrorists. After Sept. 11, 2001, Congress expanded the court’s role to consider broad surveillance programs.
外国情报监视法庭成立于1978年，目的是接受美国联邦调查局(FBI)的申请，监听它怀疑为外国势力特务的人，比如潜在的间谍或恐怖分子。2001年9月11日之后，国会扩大了该法院的职能范围，以顾及广泛的监视项目。
In recent decisions, judges ruled that opinions sought by the groups couldn’t be made public, even in censored form, and that they didn’t even have the authority to consider releasing the opinions.
在最近的裁决中，法官裁定，这些团体寻求的意见书不能公开，即使是经过审查的形式，法官甚至没有权力考虑公布这些意见书。
Legislation adopted in 2015 includes a provision that requires the government to consider releasing significant FISA court opinions. But the law doesn’t apply to opinions written before it was enacted and leaves the review process entirely to the executive branch.
2015年通过的立法包括一项规定，要求政府考虑公布重要的外国情报监视法庭意见书。但该法并不适用于颁布前撰写的意见书，并且审查过程完全由行政部门负责。
The appeal was filed by Theodore Olson, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and Yale Law School’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic. Olson is on the Knight institute’s board and was the Bush administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer as the FISA court’s role was expanded after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
上诉由西奥多·奥尔森、美国公民自由联盟、哥伦比亚大学奈特第一修正案研究所和耶鲁大学法学院的媒体自由和信息获取诊所提起。奥尔森是奈特研究所的董事会成员，在9·11恐怖袭击后外国情报监视法庭的职能扩大时，他曾是布什政府最高法院的首席律师。